[Jason Thurman]

I've seen a lot of talk about what is good or bad for golf lately, and not just on this forum. With rounds down, courses are talking about it. With ratings down, the PGA Tour talks about it. Several threads here focus on it.

I haven't seen anyone define what it means though. What consitutes "good for the game"? What about "bad for the game"?

[Jason Topp]

Most writings that use the phrase can be fairly interpreted as "for the good of the profits of equipment manufacturers."

Many of those interests, however, are contrary to my definition which would emphasize the challenge of the game, the camaraderie, the setting, the affordability and the exercise benefits of walking five miles regularly.

Examples:

Strict equipment regulations would commodotize equpment and drive down prices - resulting in a more affordable game.

Reducing the distance the ball flies would probably reduce the amount of land needed for the game and thereby reduce the costs required for building and maintaining a golf course.

Emphasizing walking over riding would enhance the physical benefits of the game, drive down the cost to play and the cost to maintain a course.  It would also deeply hurt the balance sheet of golf course owners.

[Phil McDade]

Jason:

Good question!

Good for the game: The annual spectacle of the Masters tournament.
Bad for the game: The changes over the years to Augusta National.

Good for the game: The links-like courses at the Bandon Resort in Oregon.
Bad for the game: The sky-rocketing prices of the Bandon courses that put them out of the reach of many golfers.

Good for the game: US Opens held on classic-era courses.
Bad for the game: Classic-era courses altered in order to host the US Open.

Good for the game: Courses that make you think.
Bad for the game: Overseers of courses that view increasing numbers of bunkers, trees, and additional rough as the way to make the golfer think.

The two -- good and bad -- are often related.

[Melvyn Morrow]

What is good for the game?
Walking - natural exercise pumping oxygenated blood around the system to allow the golfer to think while at the same time undergoing gentle exercise.
Thinking instead of using aids in place of feet and brains.
Natural design with minimal destruction of the ground below.
Hickory getting stronger with more people falling back to the great days of golf when it was all about playing the game unaided.

What is bad for the game?
Letting the R&A Continue in their current position.
Allowing Americans to fiddle with the core functions of the game.
Template Holes as its stops the designer designing
Island Greens that can kill the round for the average golfer.
Building courses on land not fit for purpose.
Over engineering, over watering and over manicured courses.

Yet the Good will always outweigh the bad, if common sense is allowed a free hand.

Well you did ask.

[John Kavanaugh]

All you people who pontificate about what they think is best for the game is what is bad for the game. Live and let live and the game will be fine.  All that matters is what is going on in your group of friends and co-players.  The cost of golf will work itself out in a free society.  It's bad for the game thinking the game is for everybody.

[Jason Topp]

All you people who pontificate about what they think is best for the game is what is bad for the game. Live and let live and the game will be fine.  All that matters is what is going on in your group of friends and co-players.  The cost of golf will work itself out in a free society.  It's bad for the game thinking the game is for everybody.

Definitely some truth in that perspective.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason,

Fair enough, but any golfer's opinion rendered could also be interpreted as "What fits my game/budget/desires, etc.  With 25 MIL golfers just in the US, you might get that many answers, or they might be grouped into 4-5 broad categories.

Golf is just too big to have one thing be almost universally good or bad from the game.  Just like politicians often saying "What's good for XX is good for America.  As often as the common good is served, sometimes, just a big donor is served!

For example, I agree with Phil that the Masters is good for the game.  I believe that many millions of non golfers watch that tourney and the game gets premium exposure.  

I do not believe that the one off design changes to that course (or a handful of US Open courses) are bad for the game, though, given what they achieve.  I would have thought Phil's natural corrollary would be more along the lines of other courses trying to match the landscaping/tournament conditions of ANGC or US Open courses.

In that sense, I guess you could say TV coverage of the Masters is both good and bad for the game - raising its profile to non golfers, and perhaps unrealistically raising the expectations of the average golfer.  However, I believe the average golfer understands that the Masters is a unique one of a kind, not to be replicated at the home course.  Even if they want it, they don't want to pay for it, and sanity is quickly restored!

[Melvyn Morrow]

If only John would actually practice what he preaches  - don't understand then a reminder Lockabie and Scotland 'Live and let live'  boy coming from John - what a joker he is.

[Phil McDade]

Jeff:

In my attempt to be pithy, I didn't spell out exactly what I meant by "changes" at Augusta. But certainly one of the worst, from where I sit, is the "look" of the course on TV nowadays, compared to what it was 40-50 years ago. It had its scruffy edge back then, at least from the telecasts I've seen, and now is the epitome of the manicured look, which as others have suggested often seems copied and emulated by others.

[Michael Goldstein]

I think a starting point is distinguishing between the game of golf and the industry.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()